Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Shia Cleric Explains the Lawful Use of Rape During Interrogation

Anyone who has been following the bloody protests in Iran will be aware of the state's use of rape as a means of intimidating both women and boys. Recently, Shia cleric Mesbah-Yazdi took questions on the lawfulness of such tactics.

Asked if a confession obtained "by applying psychological, emotional and physical pressure" was "valid and considered credible according to Islam," Mesbah-Yazdi replied: "Getting a confession from any person who is against the Velayat-e Faqih ("Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists", or the regime of Iran's mullahs) is permissible under any condition." The ayatollah gave the identical answer when asked about confessions obtained through drugging the prisoner with opiates or addictive substances.

"Can an interrogator rape the prisoner in order to obtain a confession?" was the follow-up question posed to the Islamic cleric.

Mesbah-Yazdi answered: "The necessary precaution is for the interrogator to perform a ritual washing first and say prayers while raping the prisoner. If the prisoner is female, it is permissible to rape through the vagina or anus. It is better not to have a witness present. If it is a male prisoner, then it's acceptable for someone else to watch while the rape is committed." Read More.

38 comments:

this is totally sick! still, shia compose only 15% of muslim world and according to islam rapist is ought to be put to death, so i cannot see how this guy came up with this kind of idea. i am not a big fan of allah and his fairy-tales but still i think that this has nothing to do with a true islam. anyway, these ppl seriously need jesus in their lives.

Who said muslis are not clean and pious"Mesbah-Yazdi answered: "The necessary precaution is for the interrogator to perform a ritual washing first and say prayers while raping the prisoner.

Thats right muslims make sure you wash before you rape. Cleanlyness is next to allahness. Oh and dont forget to pray to your God thanking him for the blessing he gave you while you are raping your victim.

Who said shilvery is dead in islam.

"If the prisoner is female, it is permissible to rape through the vagina or anus. It is better not to have a witness present. "

I just got done reading the entire article. Even I the greatest islamphobe, bigot on this blog finds this one hard to beleive. I mean its to easy. Its possible, but I dont think that Achmed Dinner Jacket would be this stupid.

Even the Nazi's in the hight of total power during the Holocost where not this stupid. True they kept records but these records where never ment to be seen by anyone. They never publicaly spoke about what was happening, instead during meetings used code to refer to the nighmare that atheism and occultest unleashed on the earth.

There were only a few highlevel meeting where the "Final Solution was discussed openly. One was the Wannsee Conference. The only people in attendence were highlevel Nazi's that where already heavely involved in the mass murder of over 1 million jews at this time. Reinhard Heydrich addressed the meeting.

"Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as the seed of a new Jewish revival"

Allthough the meaning is clear, no where does he say in front of the most ardent rabid Nazi's that they are planning on gassing and killing millions of Jews.

It was eitehr at this conference or at one other where they made sure that Albert Spears had left before such discussions took place. Highlighting the level of secrecy (even if it was a open secret) that disccussing the final solution required.

Now I'm not saying that the Iranian Regime does and has used the rape of female and male prisioners as a form of obtaining a confession. What I am saying is that I find it hard to beleive that this dicussion would of taken place outside of those "Interegators" who were performing these kinds of intergation techniques.

when i read the preview of the the article, i decided to read the rest of the article so i clicked on "Read more".Now,I wish i didnt click on the "Read more" link.The rest of the article brings forward some more sick things that these muslim leaders consider "like being allowed"...how sick can that be when you say that you can rape a woman, just dont have witnesses ??? you can have witnesses when you rape a male though..

And not only that you are allowed to rape the prisoner men and women but you will also receive rewards from Allah that worth a pilgrimage to Mecca or Kabala. that's just sick...

Yahya, arent you sick ?? I think you are a Shia too.

But you know what? i dont blame them because maybe that's how they interpreted the verse that talks about "the one who your right hand possesses "

this is just sick...

PS:thanks David Wood for this article. This article just ruined my day.

All I will say is that Vilayat-e-Faqih is an innovation from Classical Shi'i Theology and Fiqh and thus the defenders of this innovation are willing to do whatever it takes to defend. I do not support this fatwa and fail to see any Naqli daleel (textual evidence) giving it legitimacy.

Hey Yahya,

I am not a major on Shi’a Islam, so I will take your word for it. But I want to know more about this so I have a few questions for you.

1. Is this innovation a recent phenomenon or is this something that has been going on for a while now?2. Is there a growing adherence to this Vilayat-e-Faqih?3. Isn’t the mere defence of this innovation something to worry about?

I'm sick... Dear God: forgibbe whate they are doing: they are not behaving likke rational and human humans, butt they, eben then, desear your love... please, dear God, forgive them and open their hearts to the factt this is disgusting: here, there, in the yeare 2009, in the year 630 or sowhever... Dear God, we know thate they are doing this in consequence to whate thei beliebe is the right path to you... butt, please, dear God, remember thate they are justt takking the consequences off theirs beliebes in whate muhammad saide and did... so, I begg you also to forgibe this one and all off those who followed him, distorted his true message and instrumentalized itt in order to promote theire political agenda... butt above all, dear God, do give your love to all off those who habe suffered this infamous and unhuman treatmente... mie heart is withe them... Dear God, please accept our prayers in the name off your beloved eternal Son, Jesus Christ.

still i think that this has nothing to do with a true islam. anyway, these ppl seriously need jesus in their lives

Elijah replies:

I fully agree with you, these people need the fullness and completion of revelatory religion in their lives, which is Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

I do have to point out however, that torture was used by Muhammad (according to islamic tradition) to squeze information out of a non-muslim as to the treasure hidden by a community that was trashed by muhammad's own faithful followers. I simply don't see why those who follow the same path find it wrong to rape their victims in interrogation. We also need to consider that muslim soldiers were permitted to rape their female victims on the battle field and to rape their female slaves taken from these invasions while at home.

Hence I don't see why rape should be such a problem for the follower of islam in this context. For a follower of Jesus yeah, this is outrageous, after all we have the wisdom from above.

Therefore Jesus told them, "The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil. You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come." Having said this, he stayed in Galilee.

However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. (John 7:1-10)

Therefore Jesus told them, "The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil. You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come." Having said this, he stayed in Galilee.

However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. (John 7:1-10)

after all, they accept what ever the ayatollah says. well here is what the shia leader says:

“A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.”From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh"

John 7,1-10... where's the lie? I suppose is the fact Jesus saide He woulde not go to the feast and then He went secretely...

1) Jesus did not saide tahte He woulde not go... Jesus saide thate He would not yet go: «I am not going to this festival, because for me the time is not ripe yet»... as you know, in koiné greek (the NT greek) the adverbe "outw" (yet) when is in the last two places in one sentence aplyes to ALL the verbs in thate sentence... so: the capital sentence shoulde be read: «I am not going (yet) to this festival, because for me the time is not ripe yet»...

He did not want to putt His disciples in any danger: He choose to go latter, alone, incognito... His brothers wanted Him to behave ostensively (Jo 7:4-5)... He knew that thate coulde not be since it was not yet the time to His passover...

Krishnaraj... another try? I, and other better prepared brothers than me, will be here to help you... thankes...

p.s.: since you placed your demand in stereo, I'll place mie response also in stereo...

John 7,1-10... where's the lie? I suppose is the fact Jesus saide He woulde not go to the feast and then He went secretely...

1) Jesus did not saide tahte He woulde not go... Jesus saide thate He would not yet go: «I am not going to this festival, because for me the time is not ripe yet»... as you know, in koiné greek (the NT greek) the adverbe "outw" (yet) when is in the last two places in one sentence aplyes to ALL the verbs in thate sentence... so: the capital sentence shoulde be read: «I am not going (yet) to this festival, because for me the time is not ripe yet»...

He did not want to putt His disciples in any danger: He choose to go latter, alone, incognito... His brothers wanted Him to behave ostensively (Jo 7:4-5)... He knew that thate coulde not be since it was not yet the time to His passover...

Krishnaraj... another try? I, and other better prepared brothers than me, will be here to help you... thankes...

p.s.: since you placed your demand in stereo, I'll place mie response also in stereo...

If you want to be taken seriously by Christians it would be a good idea to at least look at what Christian scholars have to say about a text that confuses you before you go off half caulked like it.

This shoot from the hip approach you seem to favor just ends up making you look silly to your opponents.

From the ESV study bible

Quote:

Jesus' statement, “I am not going up to this feast,” should not be taken as a mistake by John or a falsehood by Jesus, even though John then records that Jesus did go up to the feast (v. 10). The Greek present tense in v. 8 can legitimately have the sense, “I am not now going,” indicating that Jesus did not go up to the feast in the way the brothers suggested, for they wanted Jesus to manifest himself to his contemporaries for secular reasons. In fact, many of the oldest and best manuscripts have oupō (Gk. “not yet”) rather than simply ouk (Gk. “not”), and that might have been the original reading, though the reading “not” seems more likely to be original.

The Fat Man said... Yahya Hayder Seymour said... In responding to Nakdimon questions.Isn’t the mere defence of this innovation something to worry about?

Yahya Hayder Seymour resposne"Not in my experience, in my experience, I've been able to argue rationally with people on it."

So we are talking about a group of people, who believe, justify and encourage others that raping male and female prisoners to obtain a confession is not only persmisiable. But in the case of female prisoners if the prisoner is sentenced to death the act of raping her is equivelnt to going on hajj to Mecca, if she is not sentenced to death then the act of raping her is equal to a lesser pilgamrige to Karbala. Also when raping a male prisoner it is good to have people watch.

Now Yahya what makes you think that you would even be allowed to disagree with people like this, and two that applying any form of rationality would some how convince them that this is wrong?

Dude your not only a follower of islam, your going to be one of it's victim.

since this fatwa is apparently new what in the hell do u think I would be discussing defenders of this fatwa for? I am discussing defenders of a political view, I'm sorry you couldn't quite figure that out.

Yahya Seymour. Part 1Fatman,"since determining the context of what people say is so difficult for you, do me a favour and C yourself out of the A-B conversation Nakdimon and myself are having."

Hmm as a previous post by FithMonarchy Man proved in a response to the other John's rquest for arbitration a point that was was acknowleged by the other John, Yahya Snow. I do not have a difficuly in determining the context of a conversation. Its you muslism who make up or change the context of a conversation to suit your needs. You guys to shape shift and move the goal post.

Lets examine. In this post on a article on a Shia Clerics in Iran justifying and encoruaging the rape of prisoners to gain a confession you made the follwoing comment."All I will say is that Vilayat-e-Faqih is an innovation from Classical Shi'i Theology and Fiqh and thus the defenders of this innovation are willing to do whatever it takes to defend."So both I and Nakdemon concluded you are refereing to the dogma that this Shia Cleric practices Vilayat-e-Faqih, and that you were condeming them for practicing it.So if I and Nakdemon are wrong on this, then please tell us why on the topic of a Iranian Shia Cleric and the president of Iran defending the practice of raping female and male prisioners as a means to extract a confesion. You in the second comment of this post made reference to this dogma of Vilayat-e-Faqih and then condemed it. Also you said that you "dont support this fatwa". What fatwa are you refering to if not the permision to rape male and female prisioners to extract a confession. Since no other fatwa was discussed in either the article or in the only other comment on this post at the time. Please explain if this was not your meaning.So here is the context of the conversation thus far as I and Nakdemon understood it.1. The cleric in the article and the president of Iran are practicing a dogma called Vilayat-e-Faqih 2. This is a invovation (your words) and those that practice it will do what ever it takes to defend it. (Again your words)3. You condem this inovation, as well as the Fatwa permitting the raping of male and female prisioners to gain a conffession.So I ask you if I am wrong thus far then please explain, your position?

Next Nakdemon asks you a question in regards to this dogma or fiqh as you put it. He asks "Isn’t the mere defence of this innovation something to worry about? "

To which your responded

"Not in my experience, in my experience, I've been able to argue rationally with people on it. However I am not quite sure what you mean with this last question so would ask for further clarification."

So my understanding is that you are saying that the practice of Vilayat-e-Faqih is not a problem becasue you are able to argue rationaly with people on it. Even though the people who practice this fiqn are willing to do anything to defend it (your words) even issueing a fatwa (your word) allowing the rape of male and female prisioners as a means to extract a confession.

So here is a recap of the conversation with a conclusion

1. The cleric in the article and the president of Iran are practicing a dogma called Vilayat-e-Faqih 2. This is a invovation (your words) and those that practice it will do what ever it takes to defend it. (Again your words)3. You condem this inovation, as well as the Fatwa permitting the raping of male and female prisioners to gain a conffession.4. Nakdemon asks you if this Fiqh or inovation or dogma is a problem5. You respond No becasue you are able to argue rationaly with people who are willing to do anything to defend this position of Fiqh, i.e. inovation.

I then asked you

What makes you think that you can first; disagree or argue against this inovation with people who are willing to do what ever it takes (your words) in reference to a article that those who practice this Vilayat-e-Faqih permit the raping of male and female prisioners to extract a confession in defence of there fiqn?

And secondly,. what makes you think that people who are willing to do what ever it takes to defend their position (again your words), including making it permisable to rape male and female prisioners, to ordain prayer during this rape, to allow others to watch these rapes when it comes to raping a male prisioner, and finaly equating the raping of female prisoner to a good deed like going on Hajj or making a pilgramige to Karbala, will somehow be convinced by any form of logic that what they are doing is wrong?

So if I am wrong on the context of the conversation then please point out to me where I am wrong? If I am not wrong then please answer my two questions?

"since this fatwa is apparently new what in the hell do u think I would be discussing defenders of this fatwa for?

I am discussing defenders of a political view, I'm sorry you couldn't quite figure that out.

Perhaps next time I'll dumb down my post so you can grasp it."

Yeah, I dont think they can get any dummer then they are all ready.

I understand you are talking about a political posision. Those that follow this polictical positon issued a fatwa allowing the raping of male and female prisoiners. As you put it in the last sentence of your orginal post.

"I do not support this fatwa and fail to see any Naqli daleel (textual evidence) giving it legitimacy."

Now if I'm wrong, and you are not refering to the article of raping male and female prisioners then please tell me how any of us are to know what you are talking about? Since the post is about this topic, and since your comment was the second comment to be posted. Long before this thread could of evolved into a entirely different topic.

This is the entire point of my questions in my comment. How can you argure, with people who in your words will do anything to defend their posistion, including permiting to raping male and female prisioners?

Put it in another context. If you where actualy to go up to Achmed Dinner Jacket and this Shia Cleric in Iran and tell them that they were wrong. What do you think would happen to you? A western revert to Islam, telling those that have breathed islam since they were born. Telling people that for generation after geneartion for over a thousand years have lived and breathed this thing called islam that they are wrong. Honestly what do you think would happen to you?

Yahya, thanks again for the answers. As far as your first answer goes, if I understand you correctly, then I would agree with you that the authority of the Jurist Ruler is as illegitimate as the Pope in our camp, who is supposed to be the vicar of Christ on earth, when no such thing is found in scripture.

To clarify my third question. What I meant is that this practice is defended and justified by that Shi’a cleric and I suspect that he has a number of supporters too. The fact that it is defended and justified, assuming that there is a growing support for this practice, wouldn’t that be worrying?

Brother Royal Son said: «What authority do lay persons have to interpret and judge fatwa and fiqh to be valid or invalid?»...

yep... I also WOULDE LOVE to seeee a truthfull unswer to thate question... will we habe one?... butt remeber: in islam, do the muslims claime, there are to such thing as "pastors" or "priests" or "religious judges" to interfere in the commom liffe off the belieber... hummm...

Perhaps Yahya Seymour is right. Maybe the western powers, like the USA, and Great Britain are going about Iran the wrong way. Maybe if given a chance Yahya Seymour could travel to Iran and convince the Iranian Mullahs, and Achmed Dinner Jacket that they are in fact following an innovation and that they are wrong.

Perhaps we should all contact our respective governments, and volunteer Yayah Seymour to travel to Iran on a diplomatic mission. I will donate the video camera with two batteries. That should cover Yahya Seymour confrontation with the Mullahs, his arrest, his Rape in prison, and then his execution.

Or maybe through the use of his great powers of reason, and logic he could actually convince these people to leave their evil ways and instead practice the true Shia Islam that he practices. Because after all he knows what is right and true, and they (The Mullahs) are the ones who are in error.

Then we can all join hands, sing "Kumbaya my lord Kumbaya". We could then turn our swords into plow shares, the lion will lay down with the lamb. But wait why stop there?

Through the use of Yahya Seymours great powers of reason and logic, he could also convince doctors and scientists to cure diseases, convince politicians to end world poverty, and hunger. I'm sure if Yayha Seymour was allowed to put his great logic and reasoning skills to use we could have Fusion reactors, he could end global warming. The possibilities are endless.

Ahh it is fun to dream and have fantasies right John Seymour. But now back to reality. You sir are a victim of Islam just waiting to happen. And that’s a good thing. The reason I say that is because you’re not a killer. You’re not a barbarian who believes that Prisoners should be raped to gain a confession. I have no doubt sir that when you come in contact with real Muslims you confront them on their total disregard for human life. I have no doubt sir you bring your western, cultural, and social norms into this thing called Islam. And then interpret it through that lens instead of the lens of a 7th century Arab desert booty seeking, marauding, murdering man drunk on the lust for blood and booty.. However those that have grown up in Islam, that have a genetic memory of Islam going back over a thousand years. View Islam not through your lens but through the lens of their prophet and his merry band of companions.

John Seymour I have a friend, a guy I used to work with. He grew up in Iran. He was 7 or 8 years old in 1979. He actually still has the Plastic Key that the Mullahs gave him. You know what this Plastic Key was to be used for? It was to be used to open the doors of Allah’s paradise. Ever wonder why Iran’s population contains very few in the age range of 35 to 45 year olds. It’s because these Mullahs who I am over joyes that you disagree with, gave plastic keys to children. And then sent them off to walk across the mine fields and charge into Iraqi artillery and machine gun fire. Something that even appalled the Iraqi’s, whom I'm sure you are aware are no strangers to brutality. Lucky for my friend his parents got him out of Iran before he had the chance to use his plastic key.

So I ask you, how are you going to use logic and reason to disagree and argue with people who would send children off to die, with only a plastic key?

Please keep your deluded misreadings of my writings to yourself, I've never discussed dialoguing with the Iranian Government, for you to read that into my post would be mentally retarded.

That would be akin to me discussing dialogue with Socialists and you suggesting I am discussing dialogue with the Government of Cuba. It is clear Islam nor Political Systems are not particularly your forte' =)

I don't know why people call me John, again its a mistaken assumption seeing as that has never been my name.

Perhaps Yahya Seymour is right. Maybe the western powers, like the USA, and Great Britain are going about Iran the wrong way. Maybe if given a chance Yahya Seymour could travel to Iran and convince the Iranian Mullahs, and Achmed Dinner Jacket that they are in fact following an innovation and that they are wrong.

Perhaps we should all contact our respective governments, and volunteer Yayah Seymour to travel to Iran on a diplomatic mission. I will donate the video camera with two batteries. That should cover Yahya Seymour confrontation with the Mullahs, his arrest, his Rape in prison, and then his execution.

Or maybe through the use of his great powers of reason, and logic he could actually convince these people to leave their evil ways and instead practice the true Shia Islam that he practices. Because after all he knows what is right and true, and they (The Mullahs) are the ones who are in error.

Then we can all join hands, sing "Kumbaya my lord Kumbaya". We could then turn our swords into plow shares, the lion will lay down with the lamb. But wait why stop there?

Your comments here only help to reinforce your ignorance on these issues once again Fat Man, you clearly are the height of cheap internet polemics, nothing more. Much rhetoric and stereotyping, very very little substance. The only thing I give you credit for is your crude sense of humour which can at times be amusing.

I am not opposing the majority of the Shi'a World here, be they the highest ranking 'Ulema from Najaf or even the vast majority from Qom, there will be no denial that Vilayat-e-Faqih is a brand new theory which has it's roots 10 centuries after the inception of Shi'a Islam.

Perhaps if you read any academia on this issue, you'd be a bit more clued up. Who knows though maybe Fox News will cover it one day and you'll be educated slightly in your own unique manner.

The very fact that you use the word Mullah as if all the clerics in Iran are united upon Vilayat-e-Faqih just illustrates how uninformed you are, there are literally hundreds of clerics under house arrest in the city of Qom for disagreeing and speaking out against the regime.

John… John… John. Ignoring for a second your constant red hearings and ad homonym attacks. I think we are making progress, I think the conversation is actually moving forward for the first time. Before I get into the topic I first would like to do some administrative house keeping.

First the reason why people call you JOHN, it is because the handle you have chosen. Yahya means John, I believe in refereeing to John the Baptist. I’m surprised you didn’t know that. But now you do, and knowing is half the battle.

Now for one your red herring’s, “The very fact that you use the word Mullah as if all the clerics in Iran are united upon Vilayat-e-Faqih,”

I simply can not understand how you could conclude that I was referring, or even implying to all the Mullah’s in Iran. It would make absolultely no sense for you to disagree with those that you agree with, or to rationally argue against a position you support. However I do blame myself for this misunderstanding and I do apologies for you projecting on me your inability to follow the context of a conversation.

I should have been more precise in my last post. I should have said “This Mullah” or even “The Mullah in the article and Achmed Dinner Jacket”, in my post about you convincing the Mullahs in Iran that they are wrong and you are right. I do apologies for the lack of clarity. I often forget when dialoging with Muslims that one needs to be very precise in ones statements. After all Muslim adults need a fatwa on the Islamic way to go to the bathroom, based on the toilet habits of a 7th century desert Arab. Like some how that’s important to God. But I digress..

So with that said, for brevity and clarity in regards to this conversation. Unless specificaly otherwise stated. From now on when I say “Mullahs” I am referring only specifically to those Mullahs who practice the dogma of Vilayat-e-Faqih. When referring to the Iranian government I am referring only to Achmed Dinner Jacket and his regime, and those in the regime that practice the Shia dogma of Vilayat-e-Faqih. The same people who you said would do anything to defend this dogma. I hope that clears up and prevents any further misunderstandings.

So with that all cleared up, I hope you can now address my question. I will rephrase it to make it as clear and precise as possible.

First a recap, you responded to Nakdimon that you can rationally argue with people who practice “Vilayat-e-Faqih”. Now since you also said that those who practice this dogma will do anything to defend it. And since the original post is dealing with a fatwa issued by a MULLAH who supports this dogma, that it is permissible to rape male and female prisoners to get a confession.

I now hope I have properly set the context so simple that even a Muslim can understand it. Even if a Muslim does not have a fatwa detailing the context of said conversation. From a Mullah, any Mullah in all of Shia Islam.

QuestionWhat makes you believe that those who practice this innovation, who will do anything to defend it, will listen to any form of rationality against their position?

I believe you have indirectly answered this question. Concluding your last ad homonym and red herring rant you said “there are literally hundreds of clerics under house arrest in the city of Qom for disagreeing and speaking out against the regime.” So please stop avoiding the question and just answer it.

One last thing I’m glad you enjoy my crude sense of humor. It’s what happens when you are brought up on Benny Hill, Monty Python, the Outer Limits and the Twilight Zone.

Thank you; I will be here all week, don’t forget to tip your waitresses, and try the meatloaf.

Oh lord I just realized a major editing mistake, that I'm sure Yahya John Seymour is going to just jump on instead of answering my question.

In my fourth paragraph I typed, "I simply can not understand how you could conclude that I was referring, or even implying to all the Mullah’s in Iran. It would make absolultely no sense for you to disagree with those that you agree with, or to rationally argue against a position you support."

After the first sentence the text should of read "Since the central foccus of our diolouge has always been on those that follow "Vilayat-e-Faqih", a position you disagree with. It would make absolultely no sense for you to disagree with those that you agree with, or to rationally argue against a position you support."

"QuestionWhat makes you believe that those who practice this innovation, who will do anything to defend it, will listen to any form of rationality against their position?"

Those in maintenance of the system generally will do anything to defend it, they are too important to dialogue with on this issue and are hundreds of miles away. Nakdimon's question was vis-a-vis laypeople I would assume as he asked about growing support, which often would be from the populus as opposed to the government themselves. I've found most supporters I've spoken to are fairly rational, then again I don't normally discuss things with emotional people so perhaps its just my experience.

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!